I’m a planet lover, progressive and environmentalist and I for one am happy and relieved my children will not die an unspeakable death on a planet dying from CO2. I’m happy the science was exaggerated and all is well again. It’s peace we want isn’t it? Have we lost focus of that fact? Let’s progress in peace and optimism to the future of progress. Why was fear our only motivator to get the kids to turn out the darn lights more often? Where we the neocons of environMENTAL fear mongering? Turn the lights out or die? Was this our Iraq War?
There is now serious talk of getting the government to issue
charges of treason (typical teapartyer term) to those in academia who knowingly lead us to a false war against climate variation. And considering Obama chose not to mention the “ global climate crisis” in his state of the union speech, plus the fact that the IPCC had it’s
American funding eliminated by the senate, one can see how damaging and costly and pointless this all is now. Did our saintly scientists march in the streets in protest and demand time on CNN because of Obama bailing and having funding cutoff? This IS the worst possible emergency EVER! Climate Change wasn’t “environmentalism”, it was a 25 year old death threat to our children and marching orders for mindless ideologues. Real planet lovers were glad it was a criminal exaggeration of disco science and fear mongering media and thus averting an unspeakable end of the world by unstoppable warming. It was a sick and twisted mistake and history is cursing us all for this madness.

"Environmentalists are quick to point out that the Earth's biosphere is finite and its capacity to absorb CO2 is limited. Advocates of reductions in CO2 emissions conveniently ignore that the supplies of fossil carbon are also limited, and are in fact roughly half used up already."

Our biosphere may be finite, but it varies considerably and its potential size is unknown. Given that our biosphere has been much larger in the past, we are nowhere near having consumed half of fossil fuels. It's a matter of form and location.

We are primarily constrained by our ability to produce the equipment and skilled workers to increase our rate of extraction. And by red-tape.

It's real simple. America's budget deficit is within the control of, and its long-run burdens fall principally on...Americans.

Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions occur everywhere and from a variety of sources--not all of them within the control of humans--let alone Americans exclusively. Furthermore the burdens (and theoretically the benefits) of global warming/climate change will be widely distributed to all the world's creatures and places. We really won't have consensus for radical action until we have consensus models on what will happen locally/regionally (and when) as global warming continues.

So the budget deficit issue does not implicate free riding by foreigners, or the possibility that even with a much de-energized, net zero GHG America, warming could continue to accelerate and the ravages of climate change could arrive on-schedule across the country. More succinctly, Americans don't want to be the patsies in a global prisoner's dilemma.

I think something will be done about climate change long before 2050. But I also am convinced that whatever is done will be in the nature of mitigation and adaptation rather than prevention or avoidance.

It is not too hard to figure out why there is a disconnect between the two. Fiscal calamity is 1) about money, and 2) can be calculated with reasonable certitude. On the other hand, climate change has no indisputable dollar figure attached to it. Moreover, while climate change may be reasonably foreseeable, climate "disaster" is speculative -- just because something is going to change does not mean the change is automatically going to be bad for you. I think people rationalize that, whatever may happen to the rest of the flora and fauna, mankind will be able to adapt to whatever we inflict upon the planet.

So for the anti-environmental crowd, even if we don't think about CO2, you'd still rather the government taxed your income than taxed dirty coal (which has a lot more than CO2 in its exhaust) and gasoline (that provides billions of dollars to other nations, nations which are often hostile to our interests)?

Even without thinking about climate change, I'd rather the feds get their revenue from the consumption of dirty fuels than from my labor.

Maybe it's because medicare is already bankrupt, socialism is just silly, you always run out of other people's money, and a climate crisis only looms in the heads of loons too afraid to confront terrorism? Co2 , aka plant food, has never been shown to cause warming or cooling. 2 times recently when co2 rose dramatically, after WWII and the present, there was global cooling, not warming. Three times in recent history, the Roman, Medieval and one more warming period, we experienced warmer temps than today, but without human co2. Hmmmm, stop drinking that kool-aid maybe? :)

I no longer comment on anything written in The Economist regarding anthropomorphic climate change because the topic rouses the small phalanx of Pavlov's dogs intent on drowning any intelligent discussion of policy in favor of forcing their confirmation bias on everyone else. My emotions on this subject have gone from annoyance, to disappointment, and now finally to cynical amusement.

On that subject, why haven't RR, kiwibuzz, Mr. Common Sense and all their merry friends joined us yet? This comment thread needs some spice!

"Or do you think that people don't use enough gas and coal now and work too much?"
I know that if people didn't use so much gas and coal they'd have to work a lot more. 200 years ago, aside from the occasional dutch windmill and water-powered grist mill, everything ran on renewable solar power, in the form of human and animals muscles. Personally, I'd rather be paid to use my brain, and let gas and coal do the grunt work. I suspect most people feel the same way.

from John Penhallurick, Australia
Sir, I am disappointed that you ignored my letter on the subject of Climate change. I have placed my views on my blog at http://jpenhall.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/proof-that-there-is-not-a-scrap...
An Abstract followshttp:This paper supports the claim in the subheading: There is not even a scrap of genuinely scientific evidence to support claims that human emissions of CO2 are the main cause of climate change. First, it is shown that the IPCC reports involve frauds and misrepresentations, in that the published results are based on the agendas of climate activists rather than the scientists who wrote the original chapters. Second, it is shown that the current warming phase is the latest cycle of previous worldwide cycles of warming and cooling, and pointed out that that it is scarcely credible that the previous sources involving natural variability have suddenly stopped their action, and been replaced by human activities.Third, I show that the climate models claimed to support placing the blame on human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are fatally flawed and in no way represent “true science”. Fourth, it is shown that when placed in the context of the earth’s total annual CO2 budget, human emissions are of negligable importance, and that the land-based mearures of temperature change used by the IPCC are unreliable. Fifth, a major decline in CO2 emissions during the Great Depression had no impact on either CO2 levels or temparture. Sixth, by a careful analysis of the data on human emissions, that the overwhelmingly important greenhouse gas is water vapour. Seventh, evidence from ice cores going back millions of years, which first were claimed to support the IPCC’s case, on closer examination that rises in levels of CO2 were a consequence of warming, and not its cause. Eighth, correlations between CO2, Total Solar Total Solar Irradiance and chanes in the major Ocean currents, show and U.S.temperature show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature at 0.02 are abysmal, while the correlation between temperature and the other factors in excellent at 0.83. Finally, the contempt shown by climate modellers for any influence from the sun, is shown to be totally misguided.

PS, I have posted here before several surveys of American opinion and the fact is that the majority of Americans think AGW is a hoax, and the number is growing fast. If you're going to do something, the hysterical carbon-phobes better do it soon.

Io Triomphe, I'm not a climatologist either, but have been studying the issue since it began because I worked for an electric utility and in the early day people thought utilities were the problem, not cars. The science is simple enought to be understood by anyone with high school science behind them.

How do you know that CO2 emissions are the cause of warming? The data suggests that CO2 is an effect of warming, not a cause. Of course, there is some feedback from CO2 emissions, but the process starts with warming and CO2 created by the warming provides some feedback.

The evidence is clear from the data: CO2 levels lag behind warming, or coincide with warm periods but never lead. CO2 can't possibly be the cause of warming.

As for why climate scientists tend to be socialists, just follow the money: they get it from the guv and will do anything to keep the flow coming, even fabricating crises.

Perhaps because there is no way to stack climate change legislation so it only benefits the top 20% of Americans ?

The immediate fiscal crisis is a Republican fraud. Pay no attention to what they say; pay attention to what they have done when in power. This is a ploy to hobble the current administration's attempt to govern.

Only Democrats' deficits are a danger to the nation. Isn't that obvious ?

Well yes, the whole point of a sin tax is that even with increasing rates, the revenue it brings in over time will go down. That's good. Over its lifetime the tax is still going to bring in a lot of money that can be spent on things or used to reduce other taxes. If the deal was that in exchange for 40 years of a carbon tax, we get a 40 year payroll tax holiday, then we're better off, even though tax rates in the 41st year end up exactly the same as where they started.

I'm also not arguing that taxes "create money." Your analogy is off base. The government HAS to get revenue from somewhere. I'd prefer that it tax the carbon content of fuels, rather than the income I earn from my work. Or do you think that people don't use enough gas and coal now and work too much?